So the people has spoken. But wait, the people, it seems, has been brainwashed?!

WTF…

Is it possible that a Hongkong native loves (or even joined) the torch relay in Hongkong, but hates CCP, Beijing and SAR government? Is it possible that he is proud of free speech in Hongkong but think those so-called “democracy advocates” are just a bunch of shitheads? Is it possible that he believes it is essential for Hongkong to keep its independent legislative and economic institutions but also embrace the idea of “Great China Economic Zone”? So what do you call him?

Jacky的貼文，有意思，不過我認為這只是一教室例子。歷史上(我先聲明我的歷史知識水平低)得天下者，大都是憑“I came, I conquer”；未打先投降、靠嚇就得天下的例子不多，除咗捷克，德國可以不動一兵之外，去到波蘭，已經要打餐飽。中國就更加唔駛講。國家之興亡，大都物先腐而後虫生，與keep silent無關：”A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”

I think the two pre-conditions that you have added to allow people to invoke the freedom of speech completely invalidate said freedom. If every opposing voice must consider how receptive the majority is to its message before they are allowed to speak, then effectively we have no freedom of speech to speak of. The definition of opposition is that it runs counter to the received wisdom of the mainstream; and if we are only allowed an “opposition” when it’s palatable to the mainstream, it’s no longer an opposition then, is it? Yet the creation of a viable opposition (or oppositions) is the prerequisite in any effectively-functioning democratic society. Without opposition, we’re just back to authoritarian rule, and I cannot believe that there are Hong Kong people who could claim to love their country and yet cheer authoritarian practices.

You’re confusing the existence of taboo topics in any society with the limits on the freedom of speech. Actually, it is precisely because there are taboo topics (e.g. sex, religion, race, and politics being the usual fields within which such topics occur) that it is extra important that freedom of speech is protected. So that, for example, investigative journalists who try to uncover war crimes by their own governments or deceptions by corporates would not be hushed because such reportage are considered to be contrary to government agenda / mainstream interests.

Yet “free speech” should NOT be confused with “hate speech” (which the examples that you have cited, especially regarding the laws passed to persecute those holocaust deniers in countries like Austria and Germany). Sprouting clear lies about historical facts (like maintaining that the Holocaust was a pure fabrication; or like those far-right Japanese commentators who maintained that the Nanking masacre didn’t exist), or promoting crackpot theories of racial superiority (like the KKK) is not an exercise in free speech – in fact, it’s the complete opposite. This is not about you having a different opinion or political stance from the mainstream – this is about you persisting in fabrication and deception for your own propaganda purposes. Those who engage in these – by they simply individual Holocaust deniers, or organisations promoting racial hatred, or governments outright lie about WMD in their war propaganda, or mainstream media misrepresenting facts on the ground – all ALL engaging in practices that DESTROY freedom of speech (which depends on availability of information for people to form informed opinions about events). To confuse these despicable practices with exercising free speech is a sick joke.

And it’s sicker still as apparently that is the viewpoint argued by one of the HK newspaper editorials.

To snowdrops.
While noting views from a person who is supposed to have learned and understood some Chinese characters in a remote country, I wish to set the record straight first. (a) 受眾stands usually for recipients, or audience, but not necessarily the majority of a community; hence their views may not be the majority’s. (b) 必須有兩點先要注意should better be interpreted as two points to note beforehand, but not two pre-conditions.

Nothing has been mentioned in my post that pre-conditions are required for making a speech. People who wish to make speeches in particular those carrying hostile messages are reminded to note the two points beforehand, or they would have to bite the bullet.

“To confuse these despicable practices with exercising free speech is a sick joke.” This is not a joke, I’m afraid. It’s totally beyond the depth of many Chinese to understand why those events mentioned can be made to fall within the protective zone of “despicable practices”, “taboo topics” and “hate speech”, but喺呢個為內地大部分中國人視之為頭等大事的場合，公然觸及中國人之民族傷痛, seemingly an action in the course of 冒犯其他宗教及種族 and doubtlessly a harsh sound, an uncouth message offending the ears and the eyes of the Mainland Chinese in the occasion treasured the most by them all, is taken simply as an issue on freedom of speech in the eye of an overseas Chinese, or a non-Chinese.

Bias often causes blindness, and vice versa. Not meaning to be rude, I must say that the same ignorance which renders you incapable of conceiving or embracing the useful restraints of being fair and just to all peoples, irrespective of race, country of origin, etc, exposes you naked and unarmed to the blind terrors of superstition on the western culture and value.

I take the liberty of thanking the blog master for his hospitality to allow the continued freedom of my humble views.

(Arrgh, I just typed up a lengthy response and it got “eaten” by the browser!!)

I want to thank “Mum” for your lengthy rebuttal. (However, I could not bring myself to thank you for your condescension that I “learned and understood some Chinese characters in a remote country.” Don’t make any assumptions when you don’t know the background of the speaker, is all I can say).

Anyway, I want to thank you for setting the record straight that the two points you’ve stated are for consideration only and are not meant to be treated as pre-conditions before anyone can have the right to freedom of speech. However, I must say that it certainly read that way to me when you are asserting that the protestors got what they deserve (which was that their right to free speech was taken away when they have to be physically removed from the area due to threats of bodily violence from the crowd) in your original comment.

You wrote: “It’s totally beyond the depth of many Chinese to understand why those events mentioned can be made to fall within the protective zone of “despicable practices”, “taboo topics” and “hate speech”, but喺呢個為內地大部分中國人視之為頭等大事的場合，公然觸及中國人之民族傷痛, seemingly an action in the course of 冒犯其他宗教及種族 and doubtlessly a harsh sound, an uncouth message offending the ears and the eyes of the Mainland Chinese in the occasion treasured the most by them all, is taken simply as an issue on freedom of speech in the eye of an overseas Chinese, or a non-Chinese.”

I very much disagree with your contention that supporting Tibetan autonomy is made equivalent to “公然觸及中國人之民族傷痛”. Do remember that Tibet has NEVER invaded China (quite the opposite in fact), and I found it distasteful and disingenious the conflation of the indigenous Tibetans’ call for human rights and autonomy with the Western powers’ invasion of China. Up to March 14th riots, the Tibetans have not hurt the Han Chinese in any way, and the riots were stoked by ugly rumours that the Chinese authorities were locking up and torturing Tibetan monks during their earlier protests, for which you could blame foreign “anti-China forces”, but which is also the result of the ill-advised media black-out engineered by the Chinese government itself.

In any case, it is really quite a stretch for you to claim that supporting Tibetan human rights and autonomy is equivalent to 冒犯其他宗教及種族. I have never heard a Tibetan protestor insult the Chinese people themselves or denigrate their religion. On the contrary, it is the Communist Party who has consistently denigrated the Dalai Lama as evil, branded Tibetan Buddhism as an unscientific and silly faith and insulted the Tibetan people as uncouth and their way of life as backward. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to when Tibetan protestors have actually used insulting language to describe the Chinese people with specific examples? (And please don’t trot out Cafferty’s “goons and thugs” remark from CNN, because Cafferty is not affiliated with the Tibetan cause the Western media’s racist bias should NOT be blamed on the Tibetans themselves).

You also wrote “Not meaning to be rude, I must say that the same ignorance which renders you incapable of conceiving or embracing the useful restraints of being fair and just to all peoples, irrespective of race, country of origin, etc, exposes you naked and unarmed to the blind terrors of superstition on the western culture and value.”

Sorry to have to break it to you, but you were indeed rude. And what do you mean by “blind terrors of superstition”??? Again you are making lots of unwarranted and uncalled-for assumptions about my background. I for one believe in secularism – i.e. the separation of Church and State – but I also believe in the rights of the people to practice their own religions and not to be discriminated against on the basis of their religious backgrounds. Sadly, the right to practice their own religion is not extended to the Tibetans (and before you point out that there are many temples that have been rebuilt by the Communists, please realise that it is only the State-sanctioned version of Tibetan Buddhism – without the Dalai Lama – that is allowed. Similar to the millions of Chinese “Catholics” who have to severe links with the Vatican). Please do a bit more research yourself into the extent of freedom and autonomy enjoyed by the Tibetans before you label your opponents as “ignorant”.

(Oh forgot to insert the following paragraph in my above reply to “Mum” – this is meant to follow the 2nd paragraph above):

In any case, while I understood of course that “受眾” meant “recipients, or audience, but not necessarily the majority of a community”; but here (as your own argument also shows), the audience in this case IS the majority. So I don’t see how your comment could derail my argument that opposing voices should be allowed even when it is unpalateable to the majority.

Last but not least, thanks Alex also for allowing this debate to continue (and apologies for not being able to follow up until now).

And is it possible NOT to have the WordPress browser automatically save my settings? Because it’s not displaying the “security code” that is required for me to submit a comment, thus I lost my writing several times and it was only after numerous attempts that I got it to work. (Though this is probably a problem with my own browser than with WordPress per se…).

(Sorry, the below is actually another point that I had made in my original “eaten” response but which I didn’t manage to include in the above comments):

“Mum” wrote: “It’s totally beyond the depth of many Chinese to understand why those events mentioned can be made to fall within the protective zone of “despicable practices”, “taboo topics” and “hate speech”

I’ve re-read that passage several times, and forgive me if I don’t quite get what you’re getting at. Because I have NEVER stated that “taboo topics” / “descipable practices” / “hate speech” fall into any so-called “protective zones”!!! On the contrary, I stated that it is FREE SPEECH THAT NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF TABOO TOPICS!!! I have never argued for taboos or hate speech to be protected, I mean, WTF??? Please don’t twist my words. If I want “hate speech” protected, I wouldn’t call such practices “despicable” now would I???

You seem to understand English, so please don’t twist my assertions to make the exact opposite point of what I intended.